assuranceagent
New member
42 pages into the third thread on this topic and Lighthouse's argument has been the same persuasive line from the get go.
lain:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
42 pages into the third thread on this topic and Lighthouse's argument has been the same persuasive line from the get go.
lain:
For God is love. (1 John 4:8)
Notice that John uses love in that it does not take an object. Never is such a phrase used of man. We might love someone or something, but we are never said to be love.
God’s actual characteristic of love, however, is related directly to His Being; He possesses love, as an absolute attribute of His Divine essence. By “absolute attribute” I mean simply that God’s love is not a “relative” attribute; it is not related to an object of love; it is independent of anything that God has created.
God's love functions today exactly as it always has, and always will. God is absolutely independent. He is more than independent; He exists eternally, not created or sustained by any source outside Himself. He is the Source of all sustenance, but another of His absolute attributes, the attribute of Spirituality, includes the fact that He exists as an infinite Person who needs no sustenance, no maintenance, no help, no support, and no fulfillment from anyone or anything.
He always existed, complete and perfect, long before He brought us, (chronologically) on the scene. In His personal love, and His love, like all of His absolute attributes, are totally independent of what He has made. His love is so constant and so superior to our love that it does not require an object.
In other words Lighthouse, He loves us.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Where did he say that? Even if he has Calvinistic ideas about the elect, you are part of the elect 'us' whom God loves?
Tete: Does God love us? (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8; I Jn. 4:8)
"Elite elect"/Christian caste system warning (I am still waiting for an answer as to why you think God is arbitrary and that His love is not impartial and is limited; i.e. why does He unconditionally love and save some, but unconditionally does not love and damns others He could and should save?!).
Stick to the Bible: God loves us and His.
Tete: You are confusing ontology/metaphysics (God is uncreated spirit, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient= absolutes of wonder...we are unlike God in these ways) with personal and moral attributes (character vs being). Jn. 3:16 demonstrates an object of love. Even before creation, the eternal relations of the triune Godhead involved love. God is love, but love is God is not true logically. Love is volitional, not ontological. It is a choice for the highest glory and good of God and the highest good of others.
Clete has waxed eloquent on this distinction.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Wrong question . . .
You should be asking why God loves any sinners at all!
Is "us" universal? If so, you advocate Universalism.
The only alternative, is that God does not love "us" all, but only some.
Take your pick, but there is no middle ground.
You must either preach Universalism or you must preach Particularism.
Bah . . .
Nang
See jugulum that will get you negative rep everytime. Intellectual dishonesty. She knows it is a lie.
Jesus went to the cross to bear the sins of the world. And all who call on his name will be saved. Yet this liar will pull something and add things that aren't there.
Lon
Well-known member
I really appreciate everything you've said above. I went to a dispy school. When you get into dispensational theology, you really have to understand the differences in the dispensations as you read through your Bible because each period of God's working tends to have it's separated exegesis etc. It isn't that it is totally convoluted, it is just that it is a whole doctrine of study that is complex at times.
Lots of little nuances here I need help unpacking, please. I'll try as best as I can to address what you are asking.
First, what scripture did you have in mind regarding authority? I see our structure as an umbrella, that is, we are priveledged to interact with and comply with His authority. For instance, I have authority over my children, but it is part of exercising His umbrella of power, love, justice etc. In other words, I'm a vessel of priveledge to my children and they see my Father if I am doing it wisely and right. It comes with duties and price that must be paid and is on loan to me as long as I have them. My children are not mine but His and He expects me to reflect Him in my duties. If I do not, even rocks might cry out because I've been delinquent. So rather than delegated, I see it as vesseling Him and His authority. Does this address your question and concern at all?
Next, 'control-freak' isn't what I believe. It carries a negative connotation. What I believe is that all things are from Him and nothing is that He didn't create. Furthermore, I believe He must be in total control or the whole system falls apart ala Colossians 1:15-18. He certainly has all the sparrows numbered such that none fall without His notice of the 400 Billion birds existing on the planet. I believe He was giving but one example where He'd also know every bug, reptile, fish, mammal. He is intimately involved not just with us, but all His creation. It humbles me to know He is concerned over everything on His planet. Does He know every leaf that falls? Are they numbered like the very hairs on all 7 billion people? I believe His knowledge necessarily meticulous, that His sustaining power is necessary for existence, and therefore, that He has a certain meticulous control even over the breaths we take. Again, as Colossians 1:17.
I see Him as necessary such that 'control freak' isn't adequate. I believe if He weren't in total control, the system collapses. It would be like saying that the power plant down the street is monopolizing people. We need power and if they monitor who is using what to provide the appropriate ammount, I don't see that so much as control-freaking though it is certainly necessary control. Sorry this part is a bit long, I wanted to take an honest stab at the concern. If it didn't take it the proper direction, your further input will help steer me rightly.
Please think this through a bit with me. If we were naturally inclined to do so, would such a command be necessary? In other words, as I said, I believe sin to be the culprit of our having to necessarily choose. Also, I believe love is expressed using both halves of our brains which also involves emotions. Love, imho, is both a commitment and coincides with emotions. Love is an action, but can be expressed and driven from the emotional center. We could do a loving type of action with selfish emotions, so I believe it both: A right action from a right emotion (or motivation). We can love our enemies because Christ is our motivation and what He loves, we would also love.
No, but what about before this? Did they love God before this? Did they love each other when they were naked and unashamed?
I totally agree with you here, but this is His judgement and call, not ours. We are told to love them, obviously until such a time when He intervenes and all things are brought to judgement. So until He says 'stop' we don't. I think you are on the same page here with me?
How so, Nick? I believe God dynamic (meeting our needs appropriately as they come). I know He answers our prayers. I see His hand working in our lives. I cannot think that foreknowledge would stop such, nor that it could in any way detract from our specific needs but exponentially address them beyond our imaginings. Again, I'm hunting and pecking a bit here for what you specifically have in mind with this statement. I've heard it before, but usually in connection with something specific in mind so that I can address it squarely.
Thanks Nick
In Him
Lon
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Clete will quickly let you know that "jugulum" is not a word.
So?
Who cares about daily neg reps that come from the same one or two people? Not me . . .
Jesus went to the cross to bear the sins of those the Father gave Him. Read John Chapter 17.
Correct.
All that the Father chose in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:3-5), and gave to the Son to save (John 6:37, 17:2), will be called and convicted unto righteousness by the Holy Spirit (John 6:39, 44).
"For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will." John 5:21
Nang
Lon, your post is too long for this time of night. I will come back to it.
But God delegated authority of man over the animals. I can kill an animal and eat him because he tastes good, and not because I am hungry. We have dominion over them. He gave dominion of governments to execute his wrath. If you claim you don't know that is in the Bible, well, then I don't know what to say. See you tomorow.
But God delegated authority of man over the animals. I can kill an animal and eat him because he tastes good, and not because I am hungry. We have dominion over them. He gave dominion of governments to execute his wrath. If you claim you don't know that is in the Bible, well, then I don't know what to say. See you tomorow.
God's universal love does not equate with unconditional salvation for all. I can love my children even if they go on to hate me and rebel. I can cut bad kids out of my will in love. You have a false dichotomy to say that there is no truthful position between universalism and TULIP. Arminianism or Open Theism have credible mediate positions that do not compromise God's love (your view) or God's holiness (universalism).
Your views do not compute. :bang: A deterministic view negates contingencies, conditional elements, freedom, love, relationships, etc. Your root problems relate to faulty determinism, monergism, monothetism, dingbatisms, etc.
Just because some people reject my love does not mean I am not loving to them. God loves us while we were yet sinners or part of the unregenerate world (Rom. 5:8; Jn. 3:16; I Jn. 4:8). It grieves Him when we spurn His love. There are consequences for rejecting His love. Reconciliation is not unilateral or unconditional. One's rejection of God's love does not mean that God is not love.
Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
Lon
Well-known member
I believe (my take at this venture in time) that God is talking about His righteous acts. The church was 'undergoing' tribulation from oppressors. Here (again, my opinion on what I believe God's word says) is God doing what is His alone: Taking vengeance.
One day, He will judge all men. In defense of the ones He loves, I believe it necessary to separate sheep and goats. If all the hell-fire winds up being is people living with their unwise, unloving choices they made for all eternity (giving them exactly what they want) it will be hell indeed without Him.
Long story, hope it is worth the time to read:
I too wrestle with this. When I was young, I'd scrap with the best. My step-father at the time taught us to fight and stick up for ourselves. I never let any bully get away with anything with me. I made sure if I got the bloody nose, I was at school the next day without a black-eye or a fat lip and that my opponent sported both. I hated bullies. It was in those days I was beginning the life-long habit of applying a new verse to my life everyday that I might be conformed to His image when I ran across, "if someone strikes your cheek, turn the other." I was like, "God, this isn't what I was taught. I don't get it."
That very weekend, I was at my aunt's on the farm. We went to a swimming pool and sure enough a bully came to pick on me. Why? Because he belly-flopped and I laughed. It was the best belly-flop I'd ever seen. Maybe he was hurt or something and it made him mad that I laughed. Well, out he came and told me we were going to fight. I said that I'd not fight him (a first for me). He went ahead and started pounding me until my nose bled (like 3 hits, always). I didn't understand what God was doing at all. The next kid went after my cousin and hit him twice so I doubled my fist, here I knew God allowed us to defend the helpless and I was suddenly glad God was giving me an opportunity to clean house. At the very moment I doubled my fists (a very tight fist lands like a sledge), the kid stopped hitting my cousin. I was so mad. I was like "God, what did that prove? I could have whipped both of these clowns easily and then sat on them and told them drugs and partying made them weak. I could have told them I whipped the snot out of them because I follow You."
For years I had no idea why God would tell us to turn the other cheek like that. It made no logical sense to me. I also read other verses like being gentle but wise, not returning evil for evil, etc. I was deeply troubled because I was like "God, the bad guy wins?"
About 4 years later, I met that bully at a county fair. It was really strange. He came up to me and we were alone and he said "I'm really sorry about what I did to you. I have no excuse."
I have no idea what God was doing in that kid's heart, but it seems to me, God is defending and molding and we can trust Him and His judgments.
Lon
Well-known member
If however, I am correct from Colossians 1:17 that nothing exists without Him every moment of every day, it becomes less about meticulous control as meticulous empowering. If you cannot breath without Him there is much more intimacy going on that isn't just set into motion and let loose. I don't believe God can let loose without the whole thing crashing down specifically because of that verse. If all things presently hold together in Him, there is a proximal prescience at least somewhat in advance for such.
If I am incorrect in my assumption about Colossians 1:17, I need to see where or how I went wrong against what you are calling 'common' for sense?
I don't disagree here, especially if we question validity. It only relates if it has any speculative truth (veracity). If any man or woman has any premonition about an event beyond their control, it shows that Definite Foreknowledge has no consequences to human choice and culpability and further shows that if a man possibly has it, God certainly would. I agree it is highly speculative and questionable. For me, it is an intriguing mind troubler to assertions against EDF that is incidental.
For instance? I don't know what indoctrination you are assuming here. It is a broad-sweep statement. All I'm trying to show is that God can have EDF without it impinging what you believe to be culpability. I believe scripture naturally reveals EDF to Joe the Plumber.
When? Where? I've missed something here and haven't a clue what this last sentence means?
The last sentence is a pet peeve out of nowhere. I am constantly hearing 'moving or going forward' in the media, at work, in the paper, from politicians, economists, religious people, etc. It seems to be an overused phrase this year.
I think Open Theists would not quibble about Col. 1:17 since we know that God holds everything together as Sustainer and providential Creator. This does not justify using it as a proof text for omnicausality or micromanaging or determinism of all moral and mundane choices. God sees the sparrow fall, but that does not mean He desires or makes it fall. He sees me typing without impinging on my free will to type.
Since the Rubik's cube thing did not persuade you, how about this one again?oetjq=ogjeorgjeorgeorhjeoimrgkblprn=bm ,vd =qr2mbdfjeo[ojoijofmout458uy4o5oijhnfsh (TM)
I think Open Theists would not quibble about Col. 1:17 since we know that God holds everything together as Sustainer and providential Creator. This does not justify using it as a proof text for omnicausality or micromanaging or determinism of all moral and mundane choices. God sees the sparrow fall, but that does not mean He desires or makes it fall. He sees me typing without impinging on my free will to type.
Since the Rubik's cube thing did not persuade you, how about this one again?oetjq=ogjeorgjeorgeorhjeoimrgkblprn=bm ,vd =qr2mbdfjeo[ojoijofmout458uy4o5oijhnfsh (TM)
Lon
Well-known member
Again there is a logical link between EDF and the outcome but again, I say it doesn't have to complete the Calvinist picture but there is support for such and it is important to see it:
I believe the Calvinist position can understand God's love the way you portray it. "For God so Loved the world..." If He calls us to love our enemies, He certainly does through us but it is not a saving universal love. It is a love that becomes a stumbling block to those who reject.
All Calvinists are saying is that He foreknows and so His work is effectual only for the elect and even Arminians and Open Theists have little with which to disagree on such an assertion. His love and sacrifice are ineffectual toward those who reject (for salvation) but effectual to all for either building or stumbling.
Lon
Well-known member
Did He sustain the power to exert this? Did He sustain the minute fractions of movement of your fingers? Was there meticulous involvement and support for it? Because of His empowerment, didn't He foreknow even for a fraction of a second before you did? Will He forever remember "oetjq=ogjeorgjeorgeorhjeoimrgkblprn=bm=qr2mbdfjeo[ojoijofmout458uy4o5oijhnfsh (TM)" in that order for all of eternity?
God gives sentient creation the ability of self-locomotion, self-determination, procreation, etc. I procreate without God making me do so. He gives me breath, but that does not mean He controls me like a sock puppet. This is why we have a significant say-so and culpability.
Proximal foreknowledge is not identical to remote EDF. His remembering this post as good as the computer does is an object of certain past/present knowledge, so is not applicable to future EDF before the random key crush became actual (certainly not from eternity past).
Calvinism posits determinism for election, not foreknowledge (which is Arminian). You are not fully given over to Calvinism, so are trying to retain what you feel is the best of both views, but inconsistently.
As I said, at least there is hope because you are not a hyper-Calvinist and I am not a Process thinker.
Lon
Well-known member
The brief answer from the long version:
It is a reflection rather than delegation.
We have an umbrella of authority that is His and we are merely stewards of it without ownership. It is still His authority. God tells us not to abuse animals. He tells us to virtuously uphold Him in exercising so that He is seen and reflected in what we are privileged to reflect. I see power as but a trickling down of His power, not something that we possess or own.
Lon
Well-known member
Determinism is a rather precarious word for meaning and definition. I can embrace it fully on one hand but if my reservations on definition leave me outside of Calvinistic walls, so be it. I'm more concerned that my understanding is Biblical, it only seems to me best described as Calvinistic and I assume from our talks I'm a light one as well as support from that community. Being a newb, I recognize I'm still processing but I believe I'm Calvinist Infra/compatible.